1/24 🚨 New insights into #COVID19Origins! 🔍 In this thread, I reveal previously unreported key aspects:
1️⃣ Direct connections between the CIA and virologist Ralph Baric in U.S.-China virology cooperation and monitoring. 🕵️♂️🇨🇳 @SenRandPaul
2️⃣ The complete ODNI BSEG composition as of Sep 2020—never published before.
2/24 Context:
The BSEG, est. 2006, is an advisory panel designed to assist U.S. intelligence on biological threats, incl. viruses and biosafety. 🦠
🔒 Meetings are classified and managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. @thackerpd
3/24 BSEG stands for Biological Sciences Experts Group.
3️⃣ Additional context on early briefings, biosafety concerns, and international collaborations.
Let's explore! 👇
gillesdemaneuf.medium.com/the-odnis-b-group-meeting-ralph-baric-s-january-2020-briefing-and-its-relevance-to-covid-19-93c7cc007d63
4/24 I was the first to highlight Baric's late Jan 2020 BSEG briefing, where he discussed possible non-natural origins like accidental release or engineering. 🔬
Noted in my Jan 2025 Proximal Origin update.
(See my X post: x.com/gdemaneuf/status/1883465391156109423) 📌 @DrJBhattacharya
5/24 Exclusive:
My finding of the full BSEG membership list from Sep 2020 🎯
27 experts, Baric and 26 other members such as Relman, Inglesby, Brent and Franz. 📜
The membership list was never disclosed until now.
@USRightToKnow @FreeBeacon @RecomendsFaults
6/24 Found it by proving that BSEG = B Group, then searching for 'B Group' in FOIs.
Key email emerged! 💎
7/24 Think about it: 🤔
I found out about the BSEG meeting of end January 2020 because of a likely transcript error that meant it escaped being redacted out (BSEC for BSEG).
Then I found the membership list because of an unexpected alias ('B Group') that also escaped...
8/24 Also important:
I document the CIA's outreach to Baric, shortly after a 2015 BSEG meeting and just prior to his Track-II workshop in Beijing.
This highlights interplay between collaboration and oversight in U.S.-China virology. 🤝🔍 @joshrogin @KatherineEban
9/24 In doc published Oct 30, 2025, by Sen. Rand Paul's in his request to DNI Tulsi Gabbard, we find this email;
CIA: "The topic concerns Coronavirus evolution..." 📞
Raises questions on balance between scientific collaboration, true risk reduction and pure intelligence work. 🤝🛡️
@JustinRGoodman
10/24 Said otherwise;
Following a 2015 BSEG meeting, the CIA contacted Baric to work on a 'coronavirus project'. 🕵️♀️
.. Rght before Baric flew to Beijing to discuss synthetic biology and GoF risks, as part of the US-designed cooperation/surveillance game (Track II).
@JamieMetzl
11/24 In same docs, we get confirmation of my educated guess that spurred Sen. Rand Paul:
On Jan 29, 2020, Baric presented slides outlining three potential origins:
natural evolution, accidental lab release, and genetic engineering. 📊
Slide 22 addressed WIV's role in a possible accidental scenario. 🦠 @francoisballoux
12/24 As per BSEG slide from Baric:
WIV sequenced thousands of SARS-like bat coronaviruses and cultured under BSL-2, despite hACE2 receptor use and human cell growth. 🔬
"Do this work under BSL2 conditions; despite virus use of hACE2..." @deborahblum
13/24 This raises huge concerns, as BSL-2 totally inadequate protection for such pathogens
⚠️ BSEG Briefing shows early U.S. intel being told of real possibility of lab accident.
My educated guess: this links to MI5 and the Farrar-Fauci call on 1 Feb 2020.
@SenTomCotton @mgordonws
14/24 More Context:
Four main U.S.-China workshops on emerging infections and gain-of-function research in for 2015-2019, organized by CISAC.
These events were meant to build 'informal' non-gov ties amid dual-use concerns. 🤝🛡️
@SenJoniErnst @TheHonestBroker
15/24 The Beijing 2015 event officially addressed synthetic biology, GoF risks, transparency, regulation, etc.
16/24 Baric, Franz and Shi presented,🎤
David Franz deplored U.S. gain-of-function moratorium and more generally the regulation efforts! He preferred to leave it to lab heads.
Looks like the Chinese side listened carefully.
@RepBradWenstrup
17/24 But don't forget:
The Baric example shows how US intel can also piggyback on the US-China 'Scientific' cooperation process.
The 'unofficial' Track-II channels are not exactly that neutral.
Fair game IMHO. ⚖️
18/24 Side-note:
CISAC (BSEG Franz key player) used access to top scientists (such as BSEG Baric) to overcome its limited capabilities and budget.
It was competing with bigger Arlington-based CRDF (Civilian Research and Development Foundation) and Inglesby (BSEG member too).
19/24 'Competing' is the word, and in this case it had stupid consequences: hawking US science for a seat around a table.
20/24 Bonus:
I also identified some July-Aug 2020 emails between BSEG members.
There, BSEG Roger Brent calls the natural origin consensus a "myth". 👥
He also highlighted the Mojiang mine infections (linked to WIV via Li Xu's thesis).
21/24 Shifting focus:
Kavita Berger, BSEG member who unwittingly disclosed the BSEG members list, worked at Gryphon Scientific.
She led controversial 2015-2016 NIH-commissioned Risk and Benefit Analysis (RBA) of gain-of-function research, influencing NSABB policy. 📊
22/24 That GoF RBA was controversial for its assumptions, approach, and rather limiting Terms of Reference.⚠️
Anyway, it ended up being used to justify the end of the GoF moratorium in 2017.
23/24 If that looks bad, check Gryphon Scientific's previous risk evaluation for the NBAF (a controversial animal P4 in Kansas).:
x.com/gdemaneuf/status/1533002783338938369
Gilles Demaneuf
@gdemaneuf
Pointy Head. Opinions, analyses and views expressed are purely mine and should not in any way be characterised as representing any institution or company.